From discussions I have seen on the en.wiki Village pump and various ANs, I
believe the WMF has no legal foothold to ask another website to respect our TOU.
> On May 24, 2018, at 5:28 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for people
> wanting to have
We have Terms of Use that require disclosure when people are involved in
paid editing. Often paid editing occurs on obscure topics and we are unable
to closely vet the volume of paid editing that is occurring, this means a
lots of promotional content can and does slip through and make us look bad.
Shouldn't articles be judged independently of who exactly wrote them and
for what reason?
If an article reads well, has good content, is sourced, neutral etc, what's
the issue exactly?
On 24 May 2018 at 12:28, Gnangarra wrote:
> I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for peop
In what way are they proposing to violate WMF terms and conditions?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gnangarra
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Airtasker
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> Would it be prudent for the WMF legal to contact Airtasker
>
You might want to ask legal directly at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Wikimedia_Foundation_Email_Contacts
--
Daniel Zahn
Operations Engineer
__
I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for people
wanting to have articles written, on wikipedia.
The person writing the add is asking someone to violate WMF terms &
Conditions as you can some of the respondents are indicating that they do
this regularly
https://www.airtasker.c
